You Ought To Read This

[aix_xpert]

I read the article Dan. Another feeble attempt to portray that we're in the wrong because the rest of the world sides against Israel. And I'm reminded again that I don't give an F, what the rest of the world thinks. Globalism is the enemy of American exceptionalism.

 

[Ponca Dan]

I read the article Dan. Another feeble attempt to portray that we're in the wrong because the rest of the world sides against Israel. And I'm reminded again that I don't give an F, what the rest of the world thinks. Globalism is the enemy of American exceptionalism.

You missed the point. The rest of the world sides against *us*. Which should concern you. I’m reminded of people on this board claiming “the world needs us more than we need it” during DJT’s presidency. It’s a serious error to think we can be the world’s leader when the world is against us. In the meantime try reading this one.

A Rogue U.S. Against the Rest of the World - LewRockwell

Ted Snider asks: Is America a Rogue Superpower? “Unipolar” used to mean that the United States was, at least in theory, alone in leading the world. Now “unipolar” means that the United States is alone and isolated in opposition to the world. Snider refers to the recent UN Security Council...

www.lewrockwell.com

 

[aix_xpert]

You missed the point. The rest of the world sides against *us*. Which should concern you. I’m reminded of people on this board claiming “the world needs us more than we need it” during DJT’s presidency. It’s a serious error to think we can be the world’s leader when the world is against us. In the meantime try reading this one.

A Rogue U.S. Against the Rest of the World - LewRockwell

Ted Snider asks: Is America a Rogue Superpower? “Unipolar” used to mean that the United States was, at least in theory, alone in leading the world. Now “unipolar” means that the United States is alone and isolated in opposition to the world. Snider refers to the recent UN Security Council...

www.lewrockwell.com

I didn't miss the point. I just disagree with the underlying tenet of globalism and one unified global position. And I find the thought that there is an 'international law' that is binding to be laughable. To be binding, you must have an enforcement mechanism, of which the UN has none. This whole article implies acceptance that the US (and other sovereign countries) can and should give up their own sovereign rights to a global body of unelected bureaucrats. That thought is anathema.

 

[2012Bearcat]

I didn't miss the point. I just disagree with the underlying tenet of globalism and one unified global position. And I find the thought that there is an 'international law' that is binding to be laughable. To be binding, you must have an enforcement mechanism, of which the UN has none. This whole article implies acceptance that the US (and other sovereign countries) can and should give up their own sovereign rights to a global body of unelected bureaucrats. That thought is anathema.

Like everything with the left, Anti Israel factions and the anarchist of the world, international law is only important when it benefits them. In their minds they have Carte Blanche to violate international law as they see fit and when it benefits them. How many of them do you see crying about Hamas using civilians as human shields, using civilian facilities for military operation, using humanitarian funs for military use? Nothing like a good double standard.

 

[aix_xpert]

Like everything with the left, Anti Israel factions and the anarchist of the world, international law is only important when it benefits them. In their minds they have Carte Blanche to violate international law as they see fit and when it benefits them. How many of them do you see crying about Hamas using civilians as human shields, using civilian facilities for military operation, using humanitarian funs for military use? Nothing like a good double standard.

As the saying goes: "If it weren't for double standards, we wouldn't have any."

 

[Ponca Dan]

Like everything with the left, Anti Israel factions and the anarchist of the world, international law is only important when it benefits them. In their minds they have Carte Blanche to violate international law as they see fit and when it benefits them. How many of them do you see crying about Hamas using civilians as human shields, using civilian facilities for military operation, using humanitarian funs for military use? Nothing like a good double standard.

The irony is beyond belief. You've just described the US foreign affairs as led by the NeoCons and you don't even see it.

 

[Ponca Dan]

I didn't miss the point. I just disagree with the underlying tenet of globalism and one unified global position. And I find the thought that there is an 'international law' that is binding to be laughable. To be binding, you must have an enforcement mechanism, of which the UN has none. This whole article implies acceptance that the US (and other sovereign countries) can and should give up their own sovereign rights to a global body of unelected bureaucrats. That thought is anathema.

You contiue to miss the point, whether intentonal or not I can't tell. The concept of international law where countries seek diplomatic cures for ills over brute force, was originated by the US, which now defies it at will much to the bewildement of most of the world. The article states flatly that countries that sign on to the concept of internatioanl law/relations - which includes virtually the entire globe including the USA - should abide by the decisions of organizations designed to "enforce" it. The US is violating the very concept it pursued with abandon at the origination. Now it wants to be the sole coutry deciding what is acceptable and what is not. It's going to explode in our face and you and those who think like you are going to be shocked.

 

[2012Bearcat]

The irony is beyond belief. You've just described the US foreign affairs as led by the NeoCons and you don't even see it.

Yet you either don't see or completely ignore the numerous violations of international law by the Palestinians. SMFH

 

[Ponca Dan]

Yet you either don't see or completely ignore the numerous violations of international law by the Palestinians. SMFH

I do see and do not ignore violations of international law by the Palestinians, and *nothing* I have said has ever implied otherwise. You’re so wrapped up in your defense of Israel no matter what it does, even genocide, you assume any criticism of Uncle Bibi means approval of Hamas.

 

[LAY THE WOODY]

I do see and do not ignore violations of international law by the Palestinians, and *nothing* I have said has ever implied otherwise. You’re so wrapped up in your defense of Israel no matter what it does, even genocide, you assume any criticism of Uncle Bibi means approval of Hamas.

Yer the only one here questioning Bibi Dan.

 

[aix_xpert]

You contiue to miss the point, whether intentonal or not I can't tell. The concept of international law where countries seek diplomatic cures for ills over brute force, was originated by the US, which now defies it at will much to the bewildement of most of the world. The article states flatly that countries that sign on to the concept of internatioanl law/relations - which includes virtually the entire globe including the USA - should abide by the decisions of organizations designed to "enforce" it. The US is violating the very concept it pursued with abandon at the origination. Now it wants to be the sole coutry deciding what is acceptable and what is not. It's going to explode in our face and you and those who think like you are going to be shocked.

I get the premise. But its so anathema to me that I celebrate the fact that we're giving the finger to the UN. I'm fine with treaties of partnership, but NO unelected bureaucrat (such as the corrupt power-grubbing globalists of the UN) has any right to tell the US what they can and can't do. The fact that it leads to other globalists, like your writers here, to whine about it is just an added bonus.

 

[Ponca Dan]

I get the premise. But its so anathema to me that I celebrate the fact that we're giving the finger to the UN. I'm fine with treaties of partnership, but NO unelected bureaucrat (such as the corrupt power-grubbing globalists of the UN) has any right to tell the US what they can and can't do. The fact that it leads to other globalists, like your writers here, to whine about it is just an added bonus.

In your opinion does the US have any right to tell other countries what to do?

 

[LAY THE WOODY]

In your opinion does the US have any right to tell other countries what to do?

If you voted for anyone Dan it would be sundown or Bernie. 😁

 

[aix_xpert]

In your opinion does the US have any right to tell other countries what to do?

No. We have the right to give our opinion. And if we disagree with another country's actions, then we can act accordingly. But no. We have no right to tell someone else what to do.

 

[Ponca Dan]

If you voted for anyone Dan it would be sundown or Bernie. 😁

None of the Above

 

[LAY THE WOODY]

None of the Above

Yer lust for jr?

 

[Ponca Dan]

No. We have the right to give our opinion. And if we disagree with another country's actions, then we can act accordingly. But no. We have no right to tell someone else what to do.

But we do tell other countries what to do, and we do it often, don’t you agree? What should we as citizens do to get our government to quit with the incessant ordering around?

 

[Ponca Dan]

Yer lust for jr?

Evaporated when he became a shill for Israel’s genocide.

 

[LAY THE WOODY]

Evaporated when he became a shill for Israel’s genocide.

You sure had a thing for his pecs. Homo esque.

 

[Ponca Dan]

You sure had a thing for his pecs. Homo esque.

No, I didn’t know about his pecs. I liked what I thought was his antiwar attitude. You’re the one that brings up his pecs. Is there anything about your sexual preferences you want to reveal tonight?

 

[LAY THE WOODY]

No, I didn’t know about his pecs. I liked what I thought was his antiwar attitude. You’re the one that brings up his pecs. Is there anything about your sexual preferences you want to reveal tonight?

You posted pics Dan. Good luck.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Yer the only one here questioning Bibi Dan.

I know that, Woody. But my perspective is the perspective of over half of America and accelerating as Israel continues to slaughter. And if you factor in the world the perspective of the other posters on this board numbers-wise is insignificant. Most don’t know that because they hover together on this board and convince each other they rule the world.

 

[Ponca Dan]

You posted pics Dan. Good luck.

Did you get aroused by the pics? Sounds like you might have.

 

[aix_xpert]

But we do tell other countries what to do, and we do it often, don’t you agree? What should we as citizens do to get our government to quit with the incessant ordering around?

Elect Trump.

 

[LAY THE WOODY]

Did you get aroused by the pics? Sounds like you might have.

You apparently my man 🤣

 

[LAY THE WOODY]

I know that, Woody. But my perspective is the perspective of over half of America and accelerating as Israel continues to slaughter. And if you factor in the world the perspective of the other posters on this board numbers-wise is insignificant. Most don’t know that because they hover together on this board and convince each other they rule the world.

Dan, only Romney agrees with you.

 

[Ponca Dan]

Dan, only Romney agrees with you.

I know you want to believe that, Woody, but you are wrong by a mile.

 

[LAY THE WOODY]

I know you want to believe that, Woody, but you are wrong by a mile.

Good luck Dan.

 

[DCandtheUTBand]

You contiue to miss the point, whether intentonal or not I can't tell. The concept of international law where countries seek diplomatic cures for ills over brute force, was originated by the US, which now defies it at will much to the bewildement of most of the world. The article states flatly that countries that sign on to the concept of internatioanl law/relations - which includes virtually the entire globe including the USA - should abide by the decisions of organizations designed to "enforce" it. The US is violating the very concept it pursued with abandon at the origination. Now it wants to be the sole coutry deciding what is acceptable and what is not. It's going to explode in our face and you and those who think like you are going to be shocked.

Ah Woodrow Wilson that bastion of morality and integrity! His vision would have sold us out for a global progressivism. His original idea died. Thank God.

The UN is a tool for American policy. When it ceases to further our interest it will be time to leave. The UNSC and the veto has been wielded by us as an effective tool to get our way since its inception. It has thwarted the bad guys many a time. But when has a Chinese or Russian veto every thwarted the USoA? Usually a small speedbump on the way to our objective.

We are the Sherriff. There is no UN without us. 80 years down the road and some buy the nonsense that was just propaganda about the org. Do you think our leaders of the past ever bought into moral relativism or the concept of nations being equals? There would be no UNSC with veto powers. BTW we rightfully did not sign onto the ICCJ. That's too much power given to the unelected.

In a world of minor/ non-global wars since WWII, its is Pax Americana that has kept the world at peace.

I have given you the truth but you can wallow in the lies and believe nonsense about "international law."

 

[Ponca Dan]

Ah Woodrow Wilson that bastion of morality and integrity! His vision would have sold us out for a global progressivism. His original idea died. Thank God.

The UN is a tool for American policy. When it ceases to further our interest it will be time to leave. The UNSC and the veto has been wielded by us as an effective tool to get our way since its inception. It has thwarted the bad guys many a time. But when has a Chinese or Russian veto every thwarted the USoA? Usually a small speedbump on the way to our objective.

We are the Sherriff. There is no UN without us. 80 years down the road and some buy the nonsense that was just propaganda about the org. Do you think our leaders of the past ever bought into moral relativism or the concept of nations being equals? There would be no UNSC with veto powers. BTW we rightfully did not sign onto the ICCJ. That's too much power given to the unelected.

In a world of minor/ non-global wars since WWII, its is Pax Americana that has kept the world at peace.

I have given you the truth but you can wallow in the lies and believe nonsense about "international law."

I don’t dispute a thing you have said, and in fact that’s pretty much Snider’s point. What you. don’t seem to understand is the genocide in Gaza has opened the eyes of the world that the rhetoric coming from the US has never been the truth, and steps are being taken to pull away from the empire. If we don’t recognize what we have become, and if we don’t recognize that the world has begun to see us for what we’ve become we will watch helplessly as our station in the world gets diminished. That’s the truth you refuse to see. That’s the truth Snider implores you to see.

 

[DCandtheUTBand]

I don’t dispute a thing you have said, and in fact that’s pretty much Snider’s point. What you. don’t seem to understand is the genocide in Gaza has opened the eyes of the world that the rhetoric coming from the US has never been the truth, and steps are being taken to pull away from the empire. If we don’t recognize what we have become, and if we don’t recognize that the world has begun to see us for what we’ve become we will watch helplessly as our station in the world gets diminished. That’s the truth you refuse to see. That’s the truth Snider implores you to see.

The die is cast by forces you can not see. And no I am not talking some conspiracy NWO nonsense. What will happen will happen. Solutions are possible but truly and only if we fix our internal rot. Biden the Impotent, king of the Fools is not the answer. Trump was not my first choice but he is lightyears ahead of any democrat. Looking at Israel as a scapegoat is not a good idea for a Judeo-Christian nation.

The truth!

Your sources do not have it. Their agendas are anti-American. Democrat foreign policy is one of appeasement and deference. This started with Carter. He was the over correction to the corrupt thug LBJ and Nixon. zer0 and Biden are anti-American. Radical libertarians are not much better. Yeah I usually discount Lew Rockwell.com stuff because they are nuts on most things but economics.

There is NO genocide in Gaza. The eyes are deceived by clever propaganda. There are anti-Semites on the left and right. Islam is the enemy of humanity not Judaism. Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism and has been since 1979. The leadership on the left see Bibi as the enemy to the order they want to achieve. He has been villainized long before this war. The anti-Semites in their party are useful tools. The problem for Biden is that the previous pandering to them might cost him Michigan. What you see from the left (leadership) is an attempt to balance support for Israel while leveraging the anti-Israel propaganda to oust Bibi. Its a dangerous political game. The average American is a drug addled dunce raised in our reprobate school system. Useful fools in the democrat plan for a one party state. We are an amoral/immoral people whose decadence has allowed us to be ruled by the party of envy.

Who is running the "pull away" campaign? BRICS. All but Brazil and India are our political enemies. I don't know Brazils game but India wants to ascend. A good leader would work to peel them away from China and Russia. We truly are led by fools who worship progressivism. The ends justify their means. Inside their camp are the Omars, Talibs and AOCs. Woke identity politics has overcome common sense and morality.

I am an American exceptionalism constitutionalist. I am a Reaganite. We can again be that shinning city on the hill but it requires a return to our Judeo-Christian ethos.

I have a worldview. It has been honed over 45 years of following politics. I have been a Reaganite from the time I was 9 years old. I will be 55 in June. I am not easily swayed by anyone.

I am pro Ukraine when a large faction on "my" side are not and pro Israel.

There is right ( traditional marriage, two genders, liberty not licentiousness, capitalism, democratic republicanism, rights that come from God, individualism constrained by morality, etc) and there is wrong (gay marriage, LGBTQ+, both of which are licentious, collectivism, democracy and social liberalism which is deference to licentiousness)

From Sandra Day O'Connor not exactly a conservative firebrand but it put in perspective the founders ideas on liberty and how the left and libertarians get it wrong:

Liberty, Not Licentiousness

www.libertymagazine.org

"...the New York Constitution of 1777 provided: "The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall forever hereafter be allowed, within this state, to all mankind: provided that the liberty of conscience, hereby granted, shall not be so construed as to excuse acts of licentiousness..."

Rights come from the Creator and he does not grant rights to immoral things (see gay marriage.)

In conclusion until we fix the internal rot we will be adrift and America adrift is a danger to the world. Our problem is not a lack of "truth." It is a lack of moral leaders and improper worldviews.

Burke, Locke, John Adams and James Madison are your friends.

Seek them out well before you read the next LewRockwell article.