America's Interests and the U.N.

John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the U.N., was kind enough to provide additional United Nations material in the last issue of Imprimis - publication from Hillsdale College. Mr Bolton speaks of the internal politics and the ineffective management of the U.N. Most concerning, he speaks of the dangers "norming".

“Norming” is the idea that the U.S. should base its decisions on some kind of international consensus, rather than making its decisions as a constitutional democracy. It is a way in which the Europeans and their left-wing friends here and elsewhere try and constrain U.S. sovereignty. You can see how disastrous this would be just by looking at the geography of the floor of the U.N. General Assembly. Look out at the representatives of the 192 governments spread out over the floor and you wonder where the U.S. even is. Well, we’re there somewhere. But the fact is that we’re sitting with a majority of countries that have no traditions or understanding of liberty. The argument of the advocates of “norming” is “one nation, one vote.” That sounds very democratic: Who could object to that? But its result would be very anti-democratic. As an illustration of this, a friend of mine once went to a conference on international law and heard a professor from a major European university say, “The problem with the United States is its devotion to its Constitution over international norms.”

If the international community has such a problem with the United States "devotion" to its Constitution, then the rest of the member states should take their complaints and requests for "aid" elsewhere - we have real problems to deal with.

And on terrorism:

Although the U.N. is perfectly capable of passing resolutions about the death penalty and gun control—not to mention smoking—it has proved utterly incapable, even after 9/11, of agreeing to a definition of terrorism that would enable it to denounce terrorism. The U.N. is incapable of doing this, even to this day, because several member governments think there is good terrorism and bad terrorism. It is inconceivable, in my judgment, that the U.N. will ever be able to agree upon a definition of terrorism that’s not complete pablum—and therefore utterly useless.

The entire article is a worthwhile read. If you do not already have your free subscription to Hillsdales' Imprimis, I would highly recommend it.

##That's my opinion##

Did You Say Billion - With A "B"?

Excuse me? We are going to let the United Nations control $1.88 billion to renovate the UN Building complex? This has to be some sort of twilight zone joke. In 2005 Donald Trump offered to perform the work for $700 million and to waive his personal management fee. I guess Donald didn't have the experience or resume that the UN was looking for in it's quid pro quo project deal.

But this is my favorite part. According to the UN's website, Brian Streb will be in charge of procurement and he said

...that every effort would be made to follow the
General Assembly's mandate to create opportunities for developing countries and
those in transition to participate in the procurement process. One of the
criteria for the selection of the company that will lead the renovation will be
its ability to incorporate services and suppliers from developing
countries. He also said that the glass for the curtain wall might come from China and the steel reinforcement from India.

China and India? Well why not. They are just number one and number two in the "blame evil America first" environmental club.

Mr. Streb, I have an opportunity for you. Provide another nation the opportunity and pleasure of playing host to the United Nations headquarters. Since the new world sport seems to be "hate America", give someone else the pleasure of playing host. I recommend Paris, unless they have already succumbed to Sharia law.

##That's my opinion##