The Slippery Eel

Merry Christmas

In the spirit of Christmas, I found this funny great video above on a blog that I just discovered, from Nevada, Sunni Kay's RANTINGS, RAMBLINGS, AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS STUFF. I think you'll enjoy the blog as much as I, and you might get a laugh from the video.

Try Getting a Straight Answer from the Slippery Eel

c
andor is sadly missing.



Part of the reason that John Bolton was never confirmed as ambassador to the United Nations, and was roundly criticized, was that he spoke the truth. He was not a diplomat, some say. For example, he was not averse to criticizing the United Nations for its corruption.

Contrast this style with the new Secretary General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, who is called the Slippery Eel. I saw him on some of the morning talk shows this morning, and he deserves this sobriquet. He basically says nothing. He sounds like a Miss America contestant when she pronounces she is "for world peace."

Blunt versus Diplomatic

It appears to me that there is a difference at this time in history between these two styles within the two major parties. Howard Dean, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, speaks bluntly, a style I like, but of course I don't enjoy the things he says. Barack Obama, U.S. Senator from Illinois, the fifth African American Senator in U.S. history, is the diplomat, barely saying anything, but of course paying heed to the almighty liberal mantras. Senator Hillary Clinton from New York, kind of sways back and forth between being diplomatic and being blunt; again, a style I like, but I don't like her agenda.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

On the conservative side, Bush is the diplomat, barely communicating anything when he speaks, but sticking to his agenda always, which is one-eighth conservative and seven-eighth's liberal. (I do have to give him credit for holding the line on taxes and being resolute in Iraq.) The really blunt guy on the conservative side is Representative Tom Tancredo, from Denver, who is our champion against illegal immigration. Tancredo keeps getting re-elected, but he commands no national power base.

Pundits versus Politicians

This whole situation is interesting to me, as I see the outcomes for bluntness with politicians versus the outcomes with pundits are different. Politicians like Bolton and Tancredo don't seem to get rewarded much for being blunt. Pundits, though, like radio talk-show hosts Rush Limbaugh and Michael Savage on the right, and media counterparts Al Franken and Keith Olberman on the left, seem to enjoy great popularity and to reap great wealth from their decisive stands.

I think that politicians don't benefit from their bluntness because they need a majority of voters to elect them. Bolton needed American support and world cooperation to be effective. He couldn't even get confirmed. Tancredo needs national support for his immigration policies, not just local interest.

The pundits don't need majorities in order to "win." They do perfectly well with niche markets. Rush and Savage get the hard-core conservatives, and Franken and Olberman the hard-core liberals.

As a result, I wind up liking Limbaugh, Savage, Franken and Olberman much more than I like the average politician. Rush, Michael, Al and Keith speak their minds, which is what I want in America.

I don't have a solution for this state of affairs, except I think you get what you deserve. I believe we ought to support more politicians who do speak their minds.

Crazy for Obama

I was all excited recently, like the rest of America, with Barack Obama. I am happy to see a black man seriously contend for the presidency. After all, he does not carry the same baggage as Democratic one-time black candidates Jesse Jackson nor Al Sharpton, two guys who do speak their minds, but unfortunately who are also demagogues.

Yet, as I hear more and more of what Barack says, I realize he is saying nothing. He is a diplomat. What's worse, he is a liberal diplomat—which means he will ultimately appease his base. He does not appear to have any great ideas, and continues to say zilch. How long can the excitement last? Is this still better than Sharpton? Yes, but not very inspiring.

Solution

My solution is this. I want politicians to be blunt enough to be real leaders. I want them to firmly believe in their political philosophies and take their chances with the voters. I favor Tancredo's solution. Say what you think and then let the voters decide. Yes, this means that Tancredo will forfeit any national stage for his ideas, and the Bolton's of the world will never get confirmed—but I prefer knowing where people stand than having them appease me but then later betray me when the voting on issues starts.

So, I prefer Howard Dean over Barack Obama; John Bolton over anyone they will appoint next; and Tom Tancredo over California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (another diplomat and appeaser to boot).

The Payoff for Bluntness

Yet, again, what is the payoff for bluntness? I won't vote for any Dean-like character, no matter how much I like their bluntness. I won't vote for any rabid liberal, nor for a demagogue of any party.

The only payoff for bluntness from me, then, is if you are a blunt conservative. Then, I will respect, admire, love and vote for you. I will be passionate about you. I am passionate about Tancredo. I am not passionate about Schwarzenegger. I am passionate about Dean, too. I passionately abhor the man.

Passion, that's the payoff for bluntness. Passion can get you elected, and move your agenda. It can also keep you from being confirmed. It's a double-edged sword.

The Leaderless U.N.

I'm glad the reign of the corrupt U.N. apologist Kofi Annan is over, but I'm sad we now have a diplomat taking his place, instead of a leader. And I'm sad to see John Bolton go.

Ho, Ho, Ho!

God bless you all and Merry Christmas.

click to hide most of this post

Rock

(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)

Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone

Join or Surf Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome.

Technorati Tags for this post: John Bolton, Ban ki-Moon, Howard Dean, Barack Obama, United Nations, Kofi Annan, Hillary Clinton, Tom Tancredo, pundits, politicians, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, Al Franken, Keith Olberman, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Merry Christmas

A Shameful End to a Shameful Career

Kofi Annan is exactly the Kind of Demagogue that This Blog is Against

A Wasted Human Life

Kofi Annan will go down in my history at least, along with other nefarious characters like Jimmy Carter and Jesse Jackson, as a man who has abused and wasted the abilities and power that God has given him.




Instead of doing great good for the world, as he could have done, he, like Carter and Jackson, have instead chosen to be demagogues. They are purveyors of lies that promote their personal and harmful agendas. Demonstrating the state of our world, both Annan and Carter are Nobel Peace Prize winners, and Jackson was a nominee, and all are beloved at the United Nations.

Annan's Agenda

Annan and Carter are darlings of the vicious left in America, the so-called "progressives." I know some "real progressives" in America, and these are decent, intelligent people who want only good for this country; but there is a strain of progressives who are full of hate, which is mostly aimed at America. This is the strain that loves Annan and Carter.

The common agendas of these two villains and their followers are:

The United States is a bad country that bullies the world, abuses its power, and engages in gross human rights violations.

Israel is also a bully country that abuses its neighbors, engages in Apartheid, and is the main reason for all the problems in the world today.

The United States does not have the right to defend itself. Only the U.N. has the right to decide how to defend the U.S.

It is understandable how the world can hate the U.S. In fact, the U.S. bears responsibility for being attacked on 9/11.

The Iraq War is illegal, and George Bush is a war criminal.

click to show/hide the rest of the post

The United Nations

The United Nations began life as a result of a secret meeting on board the warship "Prince of Wales" which was moored off of the coast of Newfoundland in August 1941. The United Nations came from a meeting was between F D Roosevelt and Winston Churchill. At this time America was not in World War Two though she was giving help to the Allies as a result of Lend-Lease. Roosevelt and Churchill met to discuss what shape the world might take once the war ended.

On June 25th 1945, the representatives of the 50 nations in San Francisco met in the city's opera house. Here they signed the charter and it is this date that the United Nations is considered to have come into existence. The so-called Atlantic Charter outlined the hopes of Roosevelt and Churchill for a better world. The main points to it were:

All countries should have a democratic government.

All countries would engage in trade freely with one another.

All countries would share in world prosperity.

All countries would seek to reduce their weaponry.

K

ofi Annan

is retiring as United Nations Secretary General. The Secretary-General of the United Nations is the head of the Secretariat, one of the principal organs of the United Nations. The secretary general acts as the de facto spokesman and leader of the United Nations.

On 13 October 2006, the Security Council's choice of Ban Ki-moon of the Republic of Korea (South Korea) to succeed Annan was ratified by acclamation in the General Assembly, consisting of all 192 UN member governments. Ban's five-year term as the next Secretary-General is to run from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2011.

Kofi Annan is from Ghana. He is the seventh Secretary-General of the United Nations, and was the first to be elected from the ranks of UN staff.

As Secretary-General, Mr. Annan has given priority to revitalizing the UN through a comprehensive program of reform; strengthening the Organization's traditional work in the areas of development and the maintenance of international peace and security; advocating human rights, the rule of law and the universal values of equality, tolerance and human dignity; restoring public confidence in the Organization by reaching out to new partners and, in his words, by "bringing the United Nations closer to the people." The Secretary-General has also taken a leading role in mobilizing the international community in the battle against HIV/AIDS, and more recently against the global terrorist threat.

Annan's Final Speech

In his final speech (see also The Secretary-General's Statements) before leaving office, given on December 11, 2006, at at the Truman Presidential Museum and Library, in Independence, Missouri, Annan called for the United States to return to the multi-lateralist foreign policies of Harry S. Truman and to follow his credo that "the responsibility of the great states is to serve and not dominate the peoples of the world," an apparent rebuke of the alleged unilateralist policies of the George W. Bush administration. He also said that the United States must maintain its commitment to human rights, "including in the struggle against terrorism."

He echoed earlier speeches, where he also hammered the theme that the United States is a rogue nation, stating, for example, that the Iraq War is illegal (BBC News). In other speeches, he has claimed that the United States is "dominating" the world and is a major human rights violator.

Hypocrisy

In December 2004, reports surfaced that the Secretary-General's son Kojo received payments from the Swiss company Cotecna Inspection SA, which won a lucrative contract under the UN Oil-for-Food Program.

Kofi Annan supported his deputy Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown who openly criticized the United States media in a speech on June 6, 2006, saying: "The prevailing practice of seeking to use the U.N. almost by stealth as a diplomatic tool while failing to stand up for it against its domestic critics is simply not sustainable...You will lose the U.N. one way or another."

US ambassador John R. Bolton said to Annan on the phone: "I've known you since 1989 and I'm telling you this is the worst mistake by a senior U.N. official that I have seen in that entire time."

All the while, Annan has not done anything effective about the holocaust in Darfur. Israel is under attack and he blames the victim. He has been ineffective in handling the Oil-for-Food scandal, with its attendant rationale for why the world will not support the Iraq War.

Annan, while failing ever to rebuke the real bullies of the world, like the Palestinians who constantly shell Israeli innocents, or terrorists who blow up U.S. citizens, presided over all the U.N. corruption of recent years.

Mr. Annan and his cronies all got rich while blood still flows nonstop because of their policies.

In his final speech, he outlined "four lessons ". I cannot help adding my own take on them:

First, we are all responsible for each other's security.

Except, Mr. Annan, if you are the United States, or Israel.

Second, we can and must give everyone the chance to benefit from global prosperity.

Especially the beneficiaries of Oil-for-Food and other U.N. scandals.

Third, both security and prosperity depend on human rights and the rule of law.

Unless you are a terrorist or Palestinian.

Fourth, states must be accountable to each other, and to a broad range of non-state actors, in their international conduct.

This means, you bad U.S. people, that you cannot defend yourselves. Leave that to us, the nations of the world that value brute force, terrorism, corruption and graft.

My fifth and final lesson derives inescapably from those other four. We can only do all these things by working together through a multilateral system, and by making the best possible use of the unique instrument bequeathed to us by Harry Truman and his contemporaries, namely the United Nations.

So you can promote thuggery, graft and corruption, leaving millions starving, homeless, and dead.

Annan's Inspiring Words

IN his paper, IN LARGER FREEDOM: Towards Development, Security and Human Rights for All, Annan calls for:

I. Freedom from Want

II. Freedom from fear

III. Freedom to Live in Dignity, with:

Rule of Law

Human Rights

Democracy

IV. Strengthening the United Nations

What Could Have Been

Mr. Annan's words, as usual, are noble and inspiring. No one can disagree with the above goals. Yet, Mr. Annan has perverted these into a defense of dictatorships, anti-Americanism, and just plain thuggery. If he could have stood for all these points genuinely, then he would have earned his Nobel Peace Prize. Go in peace my brother.

click to hide most of this post

Rock


(*Wikipedia is always my source unless indicated.)

Subscribe to my feed
                                          

Join me in the war on error, in the fight for truth, justice, and the American way! Support this site! Wanna swap links? It’ll help us both. Truth—The No Spin Politically Incorrect Zone

Join Rock's Political Blog Ring. Both Liberals and Conservatives are Welcome. (see left side bar)