From the moment Pres. Trump delivered his first UN speech before the assembly, there have been a lot of comments both left and right. So to keep the record clear, let’s look at the takeaways as it was in the speech, not as some liberal partisan or conservative has chosen to comment.
One liberal in particular, Congress Woman Feinstein, had quite a pithy public reaction, but was it true? Her press release can be found HERE.
“The goals of the United Nations are to foster peace and promote global cooperation. Today, the president used it as a stage to threaten war. “He missed an opportunity to present any positive actions the U.N. could take with respect to North Korea, and he launched a diatribe against Iran, again offering no pathway forward.
“By suggesting he would revisit and possibly cancel the Iran nuclear agreement, he greatly escalated the danger we face from both Iran and North Korea. What nation would negotiate with the United States when the agreements we reach with other countries are so easily undermined?”
Goals of the United Nations and missed opportunities.
Seventeen Main Goals of 2030 Agenda can be read HERE.
It’s seventeenth goal is very indicative of the UN’s rhetoric and focus in its determination to overrule the world governments and reshape their structures to best fall under the 2030 Agenda of world governance by one entity–in other words, world-wide socialism/progressive ideology.
Urgent action is needed to mobilize, redirect and unlock the transformative power of trillions of dollars of private resources to deliver on sustainable development objectives. The public sector will need to set a clear direction. National oversight mechanisms such as supreme audit institutions and oversight functions by legislatures should be strengthened.
President Trump’s UN address —
“Our military will soon be the strongest it has ever been…
“To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace.”–George Washington–
“The supreme art of war is to subdue the enemy without fighting. –Sun Tzu–
“Peace through strength” –President Ronald Reagan–
“People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” — George Orwell–
We live in a time of extraordinary opportunity. Breakthroughs in science, technology, and medicine are curing illnesses and solving problems that prior generations thought impossible to solve.
How is this not encouraging peace and global inclusivity? These discoveries and problem solving skills are not exclusive to a particular nation but are bonding many scientists and concerned people around the world in an effort of massive proportions to help humanity.
But each day also brings news of growing dangers that threaten everything we cherish and value. Terrorists and extremists have gathered strength and spread to every region of the planet. Rogue regimes represented in this body not only support terrorists but threaten other nations and their own people with the most destructive weapons known to humanity.
Clear warning to the UN governing body to revisit their charter. There are 193 current member countries listed. Several have been found to be or have been accused of aiding, abetting, and harboring known terrorist groups. So this is an accurate statement.
Do the Democrats and liberals deny the unspeakable horrors visited upon the Middle Eastern region since 2001 in particular? I mean they were Very Eager to send in our people but more because of economic advantages than because there was only a humanitarian or retaliatory need. Since that time, once thriving cities of massive beautiful architecture and history where traffic was heavy and people were not afraid for their lives have been turned into wastelands bereft of commerce and with scurrying frightened citizens terrified to be noticed. Now so-called “Islamic Law Police”, fundamentalist terrorists, and Islamic clerics roam freely through streets delivering horrific discipline for even minor infractions.
Frankly the efforts of the United Nations and our own government in this area are as much to blame as rogue nations in destroying regional stability as has been proven over the last year by leaked documents and 501c(3) global “humanitarian efforts” organizations both the US and UN w have done so for financial gain not humanity.
Membership in the organization, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, “is open to all peace-loving States that accept the obligations contained in the United Nations Charter … So what happened? Well, one might suggest, the UN dropped their standards and prostituted their charter for lucre and power.
Authority and authoritarian powers seek to collapse the values, the systems, and alliances that prevented conflict and tilted the world toward freedom since World War II.
International criminal networks traffic drugs, weapons, people; force dislocation and mass migration; threaten our borders; and new forms of aggression exploit technology to menace our citizens.
If these two paragraphs are not factual, then why has the US poured so many billions of dollars into combating the problems? What justifies the massive expenditures of every country in fighting against these aggressions, exploitations, and criminality?
To put it simply, we meet at a time of both of immense promise and great peril. It is entirely up to us whether we lift the world to new heights, or let it fall into a valley of disrepair.
Blunt and to the point — “if, then” statement of consequences which should be the starting point during any intelligent negotiations and discussions before we wipe ourselves out thoughtlessly. Responsibility and taking control, rather than embracing emotional excesses and their consequences.
We have it in our power, should we so choose, to lift millions from poverty, to help our citizens realize their dreams, and to ensure that new generations of children are raised free from violence, hatred, and fear.
This institution was founded in the aftermath of two world wars to help shape this better future. It was based on the vision that diverse nations could cooperate to protect their sovereignty, preserve their security, and promote their prosperity.”
“Should we so choose” – hmmm imagine that, countries making reasonable decisions based on mutual goals yet in a degree of cooperation. Progress through cooperation. This was supposed to have been part of the purpose of the UN to rebuild and provide sovereign countries a vehicle of communication with collaborative effort for the mutual benefit of all nations–only as an arbitrator/negotiator not oversight by a world governmental body. It also was started to rebuild countries after WWII and should have ended once those countries were back on their feed. There was no sunset clause and frankly there should have been one.
Compare that to Obama in 2009 on the roughly the same points.
NY Times full speech 2009 – Excerpts from it:
“ I am well aware of the expectations that accompany my presidency around the world. These expectations are not about me. Rather, they are rooted, I believe, in a discontent with a status quo that has allowed us to be increasingly defined by our differences, and outpaced by our problems. But they are also rooted in hope — the hope that real change is possible, and the hope that America will be a leader in bringing about such change.
I took office at a time when many around the world had come to view America with skepticism and distrust. Part of this was due to misperceptions and misinformation about my country. Part of this was due to opposition to specific policies, and a belief that on certain critical issues, America has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others. And this has fed an almost reflexive anti-Americanism, which too often has served as an excuse for collective inaction.
Now, like all of you, my responsibility is to act in the interest of my nation and my people, and I will never apologize for defending those interests. But it is my deeply held belief that in the year 2009 — more than at any point in human history — the interests of nations and people are shared. The religious convictions that we hold in our hearts can forge new bonds among people, or they can tear us apart. The technology we harness can light the path to peace, or forever darken it. The energy we use can sustain our planet, or destroy it. What happens to the hope of a single child — anywhere — can enrich our world, or impoverish it….the time has come for the world to move in a new direction. …We must embrace a new era of engagement based on mutual interest and mutual respect, and our work must begin now. We know the future will be forged by deeds and not simply words. Speeches alone will not solve our problems — it will take persistent action….
On my first day in office, I prohibited… I ordered … We have set a clear and focused goal: to work with all members of this body to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al Qaeda and its extremist allies…In Iraq, we are responsibly ending a war… I have made clear … I have outlined a comprehensive agenda to seek the goal of a world without nuclear weapons… I appointed … America has worked steadily and aggressively to advance the cause of two states — Israel and Palestine — in which peace and security take root, and the rights of both Israelis and Palestinians are respected…To confront climate change, we have invested … now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges
… Now, if we are honest with ourselves, we need to admit that we are not living up to that responsibility … Consider the course that we‘re on if we fail to confront the status quo: Extremists sowing terror in pockets of the world; protracted conflicts that grind on and on; genocide; mass atrocities; more nations with nuclear weapons; melting ice caps and ravaged populations; persistent poverty and pandemic disease. I say this not to sow fear, but to state a fact: The magnitude of our challenges has yet to be met by the measure of our actions.
You decide for yourselves. Honest, straight forward, inclusive “we” or empirical “I and We”. Vaguely similar messages: one short and to the point; the other long, rambling appearing to mean MY accomplishments and the audience has only the debacle of failure in response……….
I leave the undermining and the negotiations for another day. A veritable tome of information exists on that one, both pro and con. Though I do leave at least a few reminders that the Democrats were against the Iran Deal over the years just in case Feinstein and Schumer think to conveniently forget their opposition to “negotiating and deal making by Obama.”
CNN: “How the White House kept Democrats from killing the Iran deal,” by Manu Raju, 9/11/2015
Business Insider: “Hillary Clinton is going to bat for the Iran nuclear deal,” by Bryan Logan and Harrison Jacobs, 7/14/2015
National Review: “Setting the Record Straight on Congress’s Review of the Obama-Iran Nuclear Deal,” by Lester Munson and Jamil Jaffer, 11/17/2016