Shortly after President Obama began making the case for military action in Syria a few weeks ago my Facebook feed was again peppered with comments by the usual people making the usual pleas to work within the confines of the United Nations to find a way to settle the chemical weapons dispute. What has consistently escaped these friends since I joined Facebook during the Bush administration is that the composition of the United Nations almost always sets the stage for explosive endings to the most difficult diplomatic rows because free societies and fear societies have completely different visions for the world.

George W. Bush was a Texas rube and President Obama was the cosmopolitan cool guy who was going to win over the world with his wit and intelligence. Well, that didn’t work out. There are many things the president could have done over the past five years to make his life easier, but at the end of the day it’s hard to convince thugs and goons from police states to behave in ways that are not conducive to perpetuating their little fear-based fiefdoms.

Ronald Reagan understood this, which is probably why his presidential star continues to rise as time passes:

November 30, 1976:

If you thought the United Nations was a debating society more or less dedicated to peace keeping chores (at which it isn’t very successful) brace yourself. I’ll be right back.

Last June in Vancouver, British Columbia, (which is very nice in June — which is why they met there no doubt) the United Nations held a conference — title: “Habitat: United Nations Conference on Human Settlements.” They’ll sell you a copy of the report through their sales section in N.Y. for $10. Before you send off a check give a listen — maybe you’ll save $10.

The gist of their findings is a call for complete planning of all land, nation by nation. By coincidence no doubt, the program they recommend is virtually a restatement of Point 9 in the Communist Manifesto as written by Karl Marx in 1848.

Before they get down to the specific program the report expresses concern with unequal incomes, pollution and a number of other social ills as they perceive them. But then they get down to the business of the aforementioned Point9, “the gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equitable distribution of population over country.” I thought that was what some of our environmentalists were objecting to and calling urban sprawl.

Well the conference took note of that last and warned against “uncontrolled urbanization.” It also was concerned with “rural backwardness” and “rural dispersion.” They want to use land planning to encourage “massive shifts in population into specifically designed habitats.”

Here is the principle as they announced it. “Every state” (that means nation) “has the right to take the necessary steps to maintain under public control the use, possession, disposal and reservation of land. Every state has the right to plan and regulate use of land, which is one of the most important resources, in such a way that the grow of population centers both urban and rural are based on a comprehensive land use plan.”

They use terms that may not frighten them but they sure scare me. For example, they describe federal land use planning as a basic step in setting up “the New International Ec. Order.”

Now this was a U.N. conference it’s true, but somehow bureaucracy has a kinship and a communications grapevine that crosses all borders. We already have a “new town” program by our own Dept. of Housing and Urban Development. There are some 15 cities involved, lured no doubt by federal funds. HUD as the department is called also has it’s own “habitat” division.

I know we don’t pay much attention to vote in the U.N. General Assembly but remember that grapevine communications system. When the jungle drums are pounded by one set of bureaucrats, another set is listening.

Congress will return in January and there will be land planning legislation introduced — re-introduced is the proper word because it was unfinished business when they went home. This time the various permanent employees of HUD and other agencies will appear before the Congressional committees with that U.N.report fresh in mind.

This is Ronald Reagan. Thanks for listening. (Reagan: In His Own Hand, 164-165.)

Perhaps President Obama should have read more of Reagan’s diaries over the years and less of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals.” Ronald Reagan was instrumental in bringing down the Soviet Union; Alinsky was a community organizer who dedicated a book to Satan.

Advertisements

About the Author Douglas Ernst

I'm a former Army guy who believes success comes through hard work, honesty, optimism, and perseverance. I believe seeing yourself as a victim creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. I believe in God. I'm a USC Trojan with an MA in Political Science from American University.

15 comments

    1. I’ve never been a fan. It’s so obvious to see how dictators and despots use whatever legitimacy it has to their advantage. The U.N. was not supposed to give dictators power. In it’s current form, it’s generally useless.

    2. Hey Doug, just so you’re clear in where I’m coming from and in case you don’t understand my position because of my bad habits when it comes to communicating my thoughts and ideas effectively…I am NOT against recidivism or self-defense or putting criminals in the dirt in REALITY. Heck, this Saturday, if things go well, I’m going to get my CCW permit, maybe and then, when I’m 21, a pistol with enough ammunition capacity.

      Even in fiction I don’t have a problem with said acts themselves.

      However, what I have a problem with are vigilantes (because that is essentially what Superheroes are unless there are government exemptions for them) going around and killing dudes they don’t like wantonly and without due process and, essentially, breaking the law themselves, though I admit that character like The Punisher do have their own kind of fantastical appeals.

      Now, does this mean that I am against characters killing dudes who are SO obviously evil on a Superman level-threat scale that a needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few scenario could come about if said threat isn’t put down for good? No…what I AM against though is SUPERMAN being the one to implement recidivism in that situation more times than not (Unless the dude is someone like Darkseid who is LITERALLY A GOD OF EVIL) because the very IDEA about WHY he’s at the PEAK of SUPERHEROISM is because, he finds away to take down his enemies without killing them.

      Does that mean I’m against him killing Zod in Man of Steel? No, because he wasn’t REALLY Superman then. Does that mean I’m against him taking down any one else on his threat level again in a sequel with such malevolent intent? Ehhh…I’d say that I’d prefer him taking said enemy down WITHOUT putting them in the dirt now that he’s the real Superman, but I can’t really say I’d complain if he straight up merced said threat like Zod.

    3. I get where you’re coming from and I respect your opinion. However, I don’t think it’s right to say someone “hates” a character just because said person has a disagreement over philosophical ideals applied to a fictional character.

      A reader pointed out to me that the song that played in the background in the scene between Superman and Zod was titled ‘You Die or I Do.’ That’s rather telling to me. That is the situation the writer put the character in, and I am happy with the outcome.

    4. The United Nations is the most grossly ineffective organization the world has ever seen the United States pays three times as much as its second greatest contributor and yet a Mexican ambassador admitted that in most countries mind the organization exist to tie down the US giant like the tiny people do in Gulliver’s Travels. You know what I’m not going to talk about the way they waste there money, corruption, the way ambassadors get there kicks out of breaking laws in New York just because they can I’m not even going to comment about how our tax dollars are allowing peacekeepers to see prostitutes daily or that peacekeepers have robbed banks and slaughtered protestors in the past. The League of Nations and it’s successor are the Wild Beast of Revelation plain and simple. The League was created by Woodrow Wilson as something to promote “Christian” values on the world stage he basically told people that Jesus was wrong not to become an earthly king wrong to refuse the Devil’s offer wrong to be no part of the world and not go through all that ransom stuff the other nations loved his idea but the US congress initially rejected the notion. The League was created but it had no teeth whatsoever it was at best a blasphemous social club. Christendom betrayed our creator when they hailed it as “The political expression of the kingdom of God” The League was powerless to stop WWII and it entered the abyss. The notion was resurrected by Churchill, Stalin and FDR their reasoning? Less countries equals less war let’s use the UN as an instrument to ensure that the world is carved up by the Big 5 and everybody wins hence the existence of the security council. It didn’t work and the UN merely granted legitimacy to dictators, funded terrorism and failed for decades to so much as define terrorism. The UN is a spineless abominable organization but in the future it will become a police state enforcing global atheism DO NOT GIVE IT SUPPORT even if you have to die for your beliefs.

  1. Say Douglas, tell me, is it not human to wish to be able to stop bad people without killing them?

    Is it also not human to wish you could go out there with a gun and stop all of the bad people by killing them all?

    My point in saying this is that both Superman and The Punisher are both fantasies on the opposite sides of life and death when it comes to the treatment of criminals.

  2. Hey Doug, I heard Regan made tax increases. Can you confirm or deny this and if not, can you send me a web link to a place who does?

    Sincerely Yours,

    Douglas Ernst.

    1. Here is the #1 response I got when I Googled ‘Reagan tax increases’: Ronald Reagan raised taxes 11 times? The real story

      When I was an intern for Congressman Peter Roskam, sometimes people would email him with similar questions. I always thought: “If they Googled this they would have the answer within minutes, but they decided to write their Congressman and wait days for an answer that might never come. Huh?”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s