A Question for Liberals

Fred Glaysher, describing himself as a Fulbright and NEH Scholar, a World Federalist and U.N. Association member, and as an accredited participant at the UN Millennium Forum (5/ 22-26/00) joined me on my broadcast to discuss his "vision of the complexities of the 21st Century and global governance." One of his talking points, written to help me direct the on-air discussion, asked: "Why it's time for a U.N. World Democratic Federation and what that means."

He advocated "global governance" as opposed to global government yet, after repeated questioning he was unable to differentiate between the two. He took extreme umbrage over my mentioning the fact the UN was essentially founded by communists including Alger Hiss, the first Secretary General of the UN. While accusing me of "red baiting" for mentioning this fact of history, he proceeded to denigrate my concern by pointing out that Soviet communism had collapsed anyway and that, therefore, a discussion of this aspect of UN history was not relevant.

I responded by pointing out that communist philosophy is part of the UN Charter, the Declaration of Human Rights, and most of the official documents emanating out of the UN today. I also pointed out that most UN Conferences, including the Istanbul conference on housing, the Cairo conference on population control, the Beijing conference on women, the Hamburg conference on family life, the Rio conference on the environment and the Durban South Africa conference on racism among others were dominated by communists, issued communist inspired directives, and were motivated by communist ideology. His response was a dismissive observation that "a few flakes" whom he doesn't agree with, always seem to attend these conferences.

During the interview, Mr. Glaysher made dark and ominous predictions regarding a future terrorist attack against the US, which, he contended, would be more catastrophic that that of Sept. 11th. He insisted that such an event could only be prevented by the US acquiescing to "global governance" without explaining why that was. He ignored my assertion that the best way for the US to cope with such a threat was an assertion of national interest. This type of scare mongering has been employed since time immemorial by demagogues trying to convince people to surrender their sovereignty.

The real clinker for me was when Mr. Glaysher advocated that the UN Security Council be abolished and that the US surrender its right to veto UN resolutions. He emotionally asserted that I was a right-wing extremist for pointing out the obvious, which was that such action would end US sovereignty. He refused to answer several hypotheticals I presented regarding how the US could respond if, without the constraint of veto powers presently held in the Security Council, the UN passed a resolution that was antithetical to American interests or notions of freedom. His response to this very important question was to continue to attack me personally as he did throughout the interview. By the end of the program he was so upset that he seemed to be crying.

His overall contention was that I was a right-wing extremist for opposing his belief that the United Nations should head up a one world government, or, as he called it, a "global governance." He is, of course, quite right regarding the fact that conservatives overwhelmingly oppose such a scheme. Conservatives generally are not in love with government but believe in the US Constitution, small government and subsidiary.

While I can't prove this, I would also contend that most liberals, those who think of themselves as on the left of the political spectrum in this country, would also oppose the agenda that Mr. Glaysher and his elitist friends espouse. Even though many liberals support socialism, nevertheless, most, I think, would not support the surrender of American sovereignty to a solitary world authority. It seems to me that, on this issue, Mr. Glaysher is the extremist and that my views are quite mainstream. I guess my question for liberals is who's right about this, Mr. Glaysher or me?

You're wrong, Chuck. Liberals hate U.S. sovereignty. They read Chomsky and think we are the cause of all the worlds ills. They buy the commie lies hook,line and sinker. They see the U.S. flag and think of goose-stepping nazis. They think patriotism is fascist evil. Hell, Jimmy Carter just called for the U.S. to disarm!

YEAH, I think the bulk of the liberals would line up cheering a surrender of USA sovereignty.

Some would proclaim the creation of a global Woodstock in a nude bunny hop parade going from church to church with torches to set them alight for their midnight dancing.

Others would meet in intellectual banquets pontificating on the glories of the New Age of socialism run rampant freeing millions of minds to creation's first mass perfect vacuums and liberating trillions of words in meaningless blather clogging the media with the glories of mindless servitude to the almighty STATE.

Pogo was right.

But Americans don't just shoot themselves in the foot--they pierce their own hearts and cut off their own heads and pretend it's CHOICE and FREE SPEECH.

Rahhhhhht. Choice between Hideous and MORE HIDEOUS death options is still death. Multiplying it from greedy infanticide centers to the death of the inconvenient elderly and beyond to the death of the culture and of freedom is just idle child's play of perferable convenience over the hard work of thinking and the harder work of maintaining sanity and freedom.

I thought the first Secretary-General of the UN was Trygvie Lie.

Freedom, Wealth, and Peace,
Francis W. Porretto
Visit The Palace Of Reason:
http://www.palaceofreason.com

During the interview, Mr. Glaysher made dark and ominous predictions regarding a future terrorist attack against the US, which, he contended, would be more catastrophic that that of Sept. 11th.

So, does this mean they'll be setting our economy back two years? Hey, I had a blast in the 70's so maybe they can set us back 30 years? (Of course, 50s' were cool too!)

"Please Mr. Osama....oh please, please Mr. Osama....don' throw me in that thar briar patch!"

I can hear the wailing now if some global government started relieving many of the Hollyweird plutocrats and other liberal schmucks from their millions to be redirected to the residents of some third-world pesthole. After being forced to live with only ten luxury cars instead of twenty, the Streisand types would be hollering for a divorce from that great "global governance" and demanding renewed American sovereignty.

I thought the first Secretary-General of the UN was Trygvie Lie.

You are correct, sir. Alger Hiss was the Secretary General of the San Fransisco Conference where the UN charter was written.

You know what would make liberals shoot into wakefulness as if shot from a cannon into freezing cold water? If the U.N. were to extend "Human Rights" to ALL humans.

Including the unborn.

Imagine the reaction. Blue-helmeted thugs storming abortion clinics. Ooooooh boy, would you see a resurgence of patriotism at Harvard and Berkeley THEN, by golly. Heh heh heh... it would almost be worth it...

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.