Rejoice Comrades!

Wow. Stunning. The only people who you would think would consider Fidel Castro a, “world hero,” in any sense would be communists themselves. Communists who would look forward to putting the whole world under the same kind of rule that Cuba has endured under the reign of Castro… Oh, wait it’s the UN!

The UN has declared Fidel Castro, the longtime Communist dictator of Cuba, the “World Hero of Solidarity.” Castro killed thousands and thousands of people during his rule, torturing some to death (including a few American citizens), and Cuba remains an oppressive dictatorship even today. ~examiner.com

So rejoice comrades, surely these same people will declare Obama a world hero as well in the coming years (if they haven't already).

Is it surprising that the president of the United Nations General Assembly is handing out "world hero" awards to all the prominent leftist/communists of the world? Cause I'm not surprised. The UN is essentially a tool of leftists who work toward the future day when we will all live under regimes practicing the same sort of, "social justice," and equal distribution of wealth.

“What we want to do is present these three people to the world and say that they embody virtues and values worth emulation by all of us,” said D’Escoto, who like the socialist Morales is a staunch critic of U.S. foreign policy in Latin America. ~examiner.com

..."I remain indebted – I think all humanity remains indebted – to Fidel Castro, who has dedicated his life to the tireless practice and promotion of SOLIDARITY with oppressed people throughout the world. More than a hero, Fidel is as close to a saint as we can find in our troubled world." ~un.org

Posted by Eric Simonson at December 10, 2009 6:23 PM
Comments
Comment #292381

It is obvious from Eric’s article, that were he president of the U.S., he would by his own denigrating words, alienate the rest of the world against the U.S.

Thank goodness for Obama and the majority of Americans who actually take pride in Obama’s ability and election to bring world respect and a more positive view of the U.S. by the U.N. and Nobel Committee to America and Americans, for having elected Obama. Obama’s election speaks well of America to the rest of the world.

I suspect Eric was a GW Bush supporter. We don’t need their respect or compliments, we just need their obedience to American dictates. Yes, a common refrain found in the sub-text of so many on the Right in this country.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 10, 2009 7:31 PM
Comment #292383

DRR
Handing out “World Hero” medal to Castro, and BHO going to get his Nobel prize for peace and defending our involvement in the Afgan War, it isn’t bad enough he did absolutly NOTHING to earn the award but defending Him and saying he brought a more positive view of the U.S. and more respect. You are joking David?

Posted by: KAP at December 10, 2009 7:52 PM
Comment #292384

DRR
PS
His poll numbers are below 50 now and you say majority take pride in his ability. You have to be JOKING.

Posted by: KAP at December 10, 2009 7:55 PM
Comment #292392
It is obvious from Eric’s article, that were he president of the U.S., he would by his own denigrating words, alienate the rest of the world against the U.S.

Interesting, apparently it is ‘denigrating’ and ‘anienating’ to point out that the organization known as the UN is handing out ‘hero’ awards to a dictator who brutalizes their own people…

Perhaps it would better if anyone who disagrees with the current world governments should just shut up and let them lead, that’s what they would do if people they disagreed with were in charge…

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 10, 2009 8:14 PM
Comment #292393

I don’t see why we have to drag our president into this mess.

It does go to show the limits of reason when dealing with the UN. It is something I have real trouble understanding. It seems that if you talk the leftist talk, you can get away with almost anything. Castro is a horrible guy. But the UN still honors him. They also pretend that Robert Mugabe is a human being or that the rulers of Iran are just trying to get along.

We have to recall that MOST UN members states are not democracies, so they have a certain sympathy for fellow despots.

Posted by: Christine at December 10, 2009 8:14 PM
Comment #292403

David,

re: “obedience to American dictates”

Would that be obedience to classical American values (for which I am fighting) or the new transformed People’s Republic of America dictates? Wherein we can expect the peoples enforcers to begin inspecting our homes for all CO2 producing earth destroying technology…

Posted by: eric at December 10, 2009 8:33 PM
Comment #292409

Oh, gee, what a surprise. The president of a UN Session has different politics than ours.

First, the guys in there for a year.

Second, the position rotates between all different kinds of places. This guy is a Nicaraguan, and once supported the Sandinistas. So, go figure.

South Korea, The Czech Republic, St Lucia, Gabon, Sweden, Bahrain, Macedonia, all had a turn. The Nicaraguan had his turn, and in turn, he gave the position over to a Libyan.

The UN is not an organization where all the folks are like-minded. It’s a collection of all kinds of different governments and philosophies.

Why the Republicans are suprised that the UN doesn’t go in lockstep with us, is beyond me.

In the meantime, do you want to have more influence on the rest of the world, or less?

Evidently, the Republicans will only be happy when we return to the status quo…

…of Herbert Hoover. All hail isolationism! Worked brilliantly the first time!

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 10, 2009 9:13 PM
Comment #292410

The UN did not give Castro an award as the “World Hero of Solidarity” nor did it make such a declaration. Apparently, the president of the general assembly made remarks on a recent trip that Castro and some others were world heroes of solidarity. But it was his own own opinion and not that of the UN and there was no award, either official or unofficial from the UN. Here is a transcript of a September 11, 2009 news conference briefing by a UN spokesperson responding to the allegation:

“Question: [inaudible]…there were some reports on Mr. d’Escoto’s last trip that he named Fidel Castro a world hero of solidarity, and Evo Morales a world hero of Mother Earth. Was this a UN award? Was it a Father d’Escoto award? What was it?

Spokesperson: It was his own initiative as the President of the General Assembly
ion…”

Posted by: Rich at December 10, 2009 9:16 PM
Comment #292413

Eric
Thank you for the stroll down memory lane.Cold war nostalgia,who would have thunk it.
To get a bit more current you might wish to finaly realize that the Peoples Republic of China is now our biggest trading partner(and debt holder).We have full relations with the Peoples Republic of Vietnam after fighting a horrible and costly war with them. Russia and the US are no longer advaseries,etc.Change,aparently,is especially hard for the propaganda driven to accept, but still it is high time to learn a new dance.
BTW.That horrible,oppressive regime to the south of us has a better infant mortality rate and a higher literatacy rate than the US.

Posted by: bills at December 10, 2009 10:22 PM
Comment #292415

Christne
You are correct that most member states are not democratic.

http://www.eyeontheun.org/facts.asp?1=1&p=16

46% are,which is close. Many states that are not democratic ARE usually allied with the US. Saudi Arabia,Singapore,Kuwait etc.

Posted by: bills at December 10, 2009 10:48 PM
Comment #292421

whoa…people actually care what the president of the General Assembly says? Its not like it means anything…

Posted by: Calvin at December 10, 2009 11:28 PM
Comment #292432
That horrible,oppressive regime to the south of us has a better infant mortality rate

Do we HAVE to have this argument again? You know that stat is BS, I don’t know why you still want to put it out there knowing how easy it is to debunk…

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 11, 2009 2:13 AM
Comment #292438

RH
Because you do not want to admit it does not “de-bunk” it. Its the number of infant deaths per 1000 on the sight I posted. Its not ambiguios or complicated. Non-sensical spin will not change the numbers.Better access to pre and post natal care will, as you will see in the next few years.

Posted by: bills at December 11, 2009 4:59 AM
Comment #292440

I suppose if you include all the babies killed every year then we do have a poor infant mortality rate. Needless to say we also have the highest murder rate, highest child abusing rate, and lowest morality rate involving children.

Now, concerning the UN. It has never kept the peace as its charter says is one of the main purposes of the organization. After all Alger Hiss was one of our representatives at the Dumbarton Oaks conference. So what does one expect when you get a person who perjures themself and was a communist to represent a government and preparing a document to “keep the peace”. I expect GIGO. Not many of you probably have not read the UN charter and if you have can you cite all the references to violating our Constitution. Yah I know it is a treaty and has more power than our own Constitution which really makes an extremly dangerous proposition

Posted by: Tom Humes at December 11, 2009 5:18 AM
Comment #292446

Tom,

Do you really want an effective UN, capable of “keeping the peace?” If so, then you would probably be in favor of amending the Charter to provide for a permanent, independent military force and eliminating the vetoe power of any one of the five permanent members of the Security Council. I doubt that you would go along with those revisions.

As for the UN Charter trumping the US Constitution under the Supremacy Clause, forget about it. The Supreme Court has held that while treaties trump state constitutions and law they don’t trump the US Constitution (Reid v. Covert, 1957). It would be absurd that a treaty entered into under the provisions of the US Constitution could amend that very Constition and confer powers not granted or prohibited.

Posted by: Rich at December 11, 2009 7:35 AM
Comment #292450

Tom
You do understand that GA resolutions are not binding, right? That no one has to follow them if they don’t want to?

Do you also know that the US has a veto over the Security Coucil, meaning we can nix anything we don’t like or would contradict our constitution?

When many states (that jealously guard their sovereignty) create a new, large international organization, I don’t expect it to have much enforcement power.

Posted by: Calvin at December 11, 2009 9:05 AM
Comment #292453

Tom Humes-
The purpose of the UN was to prevent another World War.

Seen any lately?

Just because you cannot imagine a use for something doesn’t mean that there isn’t one.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at December 11, 2009 9:54 AM
Comment #292455
The purpose of the UN was to prevent another World War.

Seen any lately?

Lots. We just CALL them that anymore, so I guess you are right, they do have a decent propaganda department…

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 11, 2009 10:00 AM
Comment #292458

In the mean time it appears that we just say ho-hum to the vast corruption eminating from the various US groups. Like raping of women and childred in war torn African nations. Like the anti-semitic attitudes of a majority of the members. And ad nausem. One could consider the goings on in the Middle East as a world war. How many nations are involved? Nearly 40.

Calvin,
That is the whole reason the UN is not effective. They pontificate according to whatever and pass stupid resolutions that cannot be enforced. So, why do they even exist. A military force has already established since nearly the beginning of that devils hole called the UN. I do not want to surrender one ounce or one inch of sovereignty to any organization that cannot have its allegiance to the US.
I would like to go on for another hour, but my ham radio hobby is calling.

Posted by: Tom Humes at December 11, 2009 10:38 AM
Comment #292464

“A military force has already established since nearly the beginning of that devils hole called the UN.”

Not true. Peacekeeping efforts of the UN consist entirely of voluntary military contributions from member nations. The UN does not have a standing army nor can it under the terms of the Charter.

Posted by: Rich at December 11, 2009 11:02 AM
Comment #292478

Call it what you want. They are called UN forces. That was true in Korea and it is true today. And since when does the Charter keep the UN from doing much what our Congress does; disobey the document that establishes either organization. And they do this in a gross manner.

Posted by: Tom Humes at December 11, 2009 1:10 PM
Comment #292481

The intolerance by those on the Right for anyone, anywhere in the world, having a different view than themselves, is amply revealed by the replies to my first comment here.

Thank you all on the Right, for your candor and display of right-wing intolerance for differing points of view. Being a nation of diversity, it is comforting to know your Party will remain a minority party for decades more, yet. The GOP attracts Orwellian authoritarian types who would enforce their own minority perspective upon the people’s of the world, condemning all others with differing views.

I don’t think Castro has been a hero, but, you know, it is understandable why some ideological socialists and communists in the world, would. If the Right could ever adopt such an ability to step into the shoes of others for the purpose of understanding differing views, they would actually have overcome one of the greatest hurdles to their remaining in power for more than a few destructive years.

Which raises another trait of the Right. Fear. To live in fear of other minorities, and ideological communists and socialists are minorities in the world, always at the ready to fight and defend against those minority’s differing views, usually results in a gross mis-allocation of one’s resources. Can anyone say, Iraq? To lead from fear is only to make apparent one’s propensity to live in fear obvious. And there is no truer form of self-fulfilling prophecy than fear in the human mind.

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 11, 2009 1:46 PM
Comment #292483

Rhinehold replied to: ” The purpose of the UN was to prevent another World War. Seen any lately?”

With:

“Lots. We just CALL them that anymore, so I guess you are right, they do have a decent propaganda department…”

Rhinehold’s comment reveals no sense of proportion or scale, nor the ability to distinguish between terrorism or the Viet Nam War, and wars involving large numbers of nations of the world, fought in places around the globe. Libertarian must mean having the capacity to take liberties with logic, history, language, and reason. :-)

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 11, 2009 1:52 PM
Comment #292489

David, et.al.
Just to set the record straight. I am neither left nor right, neither liberal nor conservative, nor am I in the middle. Now I have you confused.
I am a Constitutionalist to the nth degree.

Posted by: Tom Humes at December 11, 2009 4:26 PM
Comment #292490

Tom, to what does your comment respond? I don’t see where I or anyone else identified you as being of any particular persuasion.

Constitutionalist?

What does that mean to you?

Posted by: David R. Remer at December 11, 2009 4:30 PM
Comment #292493

DRR
The intolerance by those on the right for anyone, anywhere in the world, having a different view then themselves is amply revealed by the replies to my first comment here. From some of your comments we could substitute your name in place of the “RIGHT”. Your comments to some have been kind of brash at times.

Posted by: KAP at December 11, 2009 5:06 PM
Comment #292509

David,
I believe the Constitution as it is written and not what people want it to say or mean. The first 9 amendments are restrictions on the Federal government. These have been run roughshod over on hundreds of occasions. The 10th amendment is after the enumeration of the federal powers are mentioned the states have the sovereign right to take care of all matters. For instance, USDA is one of the biggest departments in the federal scheme of things, yet there is no provision in the Constitution for their authority. Each state should have its own Ag Dept. to deal more properly with the matters of Ag. Of, course there are many more. The Congress has enumerated powers, yet it gets involved in matters it should not. For instance, baseball and steroids. And there are numerous occasions that this is multiplied. I hope I have been just a little bit more specific on what I believe as a Constitutionalist.

Posted by: Tom Humes at December 11, 2009 6:50 PM
Comment #292517
Rhinehold’s comment reveals no sense of proportion or scale, nor the ability to distinguish between terrorism or the Viet Nam War, and wars involving large numbers of nations of the world, fought in places around the globe. Libertarian must mean having the capacity to take liberties with logic, history, language, and reason. :-)

How many nations were involved in WWII? How many were involved in Kosovo? How many in Korea? How many in Vietnam, Iraq I or II, Afghanistan…

These are not single countries duking it out against each other, they are several countries going at at…

Are the number of people dead anywhere near the same? NO, not on the US side… But to suggest that the UN has done a good job keeping us out of worldwide wars… That’s a pollyannism that tries to hide behind words. Like those who called Vietnam a police action so we didn’t have to declare it a war, same with Iraq and Afghanistan…

Posted by: Rhinehold at December 11, 2009 9:01 PM
Post a comment