Posted on 12/26/2017 5:57:24 PM PST by Kaslin
NBC and MSNBC have been on a crusade during the Christmas season to smear and slam the United States at every opportunity because of the Trump administration’s new direction in dealing with the inept United Nations. During Tuesday’s Andrea Mitchell Reports, fill-in host Ayman Mohyeldin and former Obama-era Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Evelyn Farkas were worried that the U.S. negotiated spending cut was politically motivated and that the administration’s attitude towards the U.N. could harm the U.N. mission of preventing “global war.”
After introducing Farkas, Mohyeldin downplayed the U.N.’s wastefulness by describing it as a “somewhat a bloated bureaucracy.” And he fretted the cut was somehow in retaliation for the vote condemning the U.S. for rightfully declaring Jerusalem the capital of Israel.
“But when you juxtapose this with the ambassador's threats, as some people have called them, to member states of the U.N. ahead of the vote,” he said. “It's hard not to look at this and say this is a politically motivated decision to slash the budget for countries not standing with the United States.” NBC and MSNBC have been on a crusade during the Christmas season to smear and slam the United States at every opportunity because of the Trump administration’s new direction in dealing with the inept United Nations. During Tuesday’s Andrea Mitchell Reports, fill-in host Ayman Mohyeldin and former Obama-era Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Evelyn Farkas were worried that the U.S. negotiated spending cut was politically motivated and that the administration’s attitude towards the U.N. could harm the U.N. mission of preventing “global war.”
After introducing Farkas, Mohyeldin downplayed the U.N.’s wastefulness by describing it as a “somewhat a bloated bureaucracy.” And he fretted the cut was somehow in retaliation for the vote condemning the U.S. for rightfully declaring Jerusalem the capital of Israel.
“But when you juxtapose this with the ambassador's threats, as some people have called them, to member states of the U.N. ahead of the vote,” he said. “It's hard not to look at this and say this is a politically motivated decision to slash the budget for countries not standing with the United States.” NBC and MSNBC have been on a crusade during the Christmas season to smear and slam the United States at every opportunity because of the Trump administration’s new direction in dealing with the inept United Nations. During Tuesday’s Andrea Mitchell Reports, fill-in host Ayman Mohyeldin and former Obama-era Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Evelyn Farkas were worried that the U.S. negotiated spending cut was politically motivated and that the administration’s attitude towards the U.N. could harm the U.N. mission of preventing “global war.”
After introducing Farkas, Mohyeldin downplayed the U.N.’s wastefulness by describing it as a “somewhat a bloated bureaucracy.” And he fretted the cut was somehow in retaliation for the vote condemning the U.S. for rightfully declaring Jerusalem the capital of Israel.
MSNBC Frets New U.S. Attitude With U.N. Could Harm Global Peace
“And we were actually lucky, then, that subsequently, where we really cared, on the issue of North Korea, the U.N. went with us,” Farkas pompously declared, oblivious to her lack of knowledge. “The Security Council voted unanimously with us. So, that was a lucky strike on our part.”
Playing off of Farkas’ comment about the Security Council’s North Korea vote, Mohyeldin worried about Trump trying to “discredit” the U.N., asking: “So what's the strategy then by turning around and trying to discredit the U.N., or weaken the U.N. And using the kind of language that the ambassador used there in criticizing those countries?”
Farkas responded, again putting her ignorance on full display:
But the problem I have with it I know that the President and many of the people in his inner circle, they have come out very skeptical about international institutions, the United Nations, NATO, the World Trade Organization, all these institutions we set up at the end of World War II. Why did we set them up? Because we wanted to make sure we wouldn't have radical nationalism or protectionism, again, that would rise up so strongly that they would actually create incentives for potential war.
First off, the WTO wasn’t founded after WWII because it was founded on January 1, 1995. And while NATO was founded in the wake of WWII, its primary reason for being was to be a deterrent and a combined fighting force in the event the U.S.S.R. invaded the rest of Europe.
“So, it's really about preventing global war, and I worry a little bit about the attacks that we've been making on the international institutions,” she opined further, comparing Trump to Russia.
This is just the latest in an apparent campaign by NBC to do all they can to smear the United States and the Trump administration for not going along with the U.N. charade. Last week, on NBC Nightly News, they said the U.S. was acting like a “bully” for standing up for Israel and against the U.N.’s anti-Semites. And the next day on MSNBC, an analyst claimed the U.S. was using “mafia” style tactics to get its way.
Transcript below:
MSNBC
Andrea Mitchell Reports
December 26, 2017
12:33:12 PM Eastern
AYMAN MOHYELDIN: Let’s talk a little bit about what this actually means. And we heard her there reference—We all know the United Nations is somewhat a bloated bureaucracy, certainly a criticism on many of its programs. But when you juxtapose this with the ambassador's threats, as some people have called them, to member states of the U.N. ahead of the vote, saying: “We're taking names, we're going to be watching very closely, the President has authorized me to do so.” It's hard not to look at this and say this is a politically motivated decision to slash the budget for countries not standing with the United States.
EVELYN FARKAS: So that's what it looks like, Ayman, but I would say it may not be intentional, because I remember Ambassador Haley talking about this around the time that our President was going to General Assembly in September to give a speech, and I remember her making a pitch, really, defending the United Nations saying, “Hey, this is an institution that, you know, America helped to create, we can make it work for us, and by the way, we're going to streamlining things, we're going to cutting the budget, we're looking for efficiency.” So, I feel like this started out as her way of showing the President that there was value in the U.N. and that we're also going to make sure, of course, that they're not going to waste our money.
But as you said, these came right after those threats which were really kind of puzzling, head scratching, in the context of the actual vote that they were taking, which was an expression of the view of the U.N. General Assembly, of the Security Council, rather, but not actually something that cause anything to change on the ground. So it was a nonbinding vote but it came with all these threats.
And we were actually lucky, then, that subsequently, where we really cared, on the issue of North Korea, the U.N. went with us. The Security Council voted unanimously with us. So, that was a lucky strike on our part.
MOHYELDIN: So to that point, on one hand the United States benefits from a strong United Nations. As you just mentioned: When the United States needs tougher sanctions on a place like North Korea, when they want to go invade Iraq and use the intelligence that they did to present to the United Nations, they certainly go to that body to try to get international legitimacy. So what's the strategy then by turning around and trying to discredit the U.N., or weaken the U.N. And using the kind of language that the ambassador used there in criticizing those countries?
FARKAS: I think it's a really problematic strategy. I think trying to take the fat out of the budget, that's great. I commend Ambassador Haley for doing that. Really, I have to take it at face value. But the problem I have with it I know that the President and many of the people in his inner circle, they have come out very skeptical about international institutions, the United Nations, NATO, the World Trade Organization, all these institutions we set up at the end of World War II. Why did we set them up? Because we wanted to make sure we wouldn't have radical nationalism or protectionism, again, that would rise up so strongly that they would actually create incentives for potential war. I’m talking mainly about Europe, but remember there was war in Asia as well in the second World War. So, it's really about preventing global war, and I worry a little bit about the attacks that we've been making on the international institutions and the fact that we haven't been standing up against Russia in particular, which has also been attacking the international order.
(…)
The UN only cares about Global Warming
Trump was right. I am getting a little sick of winning. Gosh mslsd upset WINNING
Didn’t MSNBC tell us that DJT was a war monger a year ago? Based on the “reporting” of MSNBC, I can’t believe we made it through 2017 without DJT getting the U.S. into two or three wars by now.
“Global peace” if that’s what we’ve been paying billons for each year, I want my money back.
bump
The world has been at peace?
Yes Dear, it does look like the first one hit the MSNBC studios ...
List of ongoing armed conflicts:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ongoing_armed_conflicts
Is it really about preventing global war? Why should the USA continue to support countries who are actively working to destroy the USA? Countries that believe socialism and communism are the answer?
Can you list the "investment" by the USA and the accomplishments and benefits of our support?
How much money has the USA poured into the UN? What are we getting back beside hate and hands sticking out for more money? Can you list the pluses and minuses of our participation in the UN?
Here is a rogues gallery of the funds to which liberals can send their Trump tax cut:
OCHA Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF)
OCHA Country-Based Pooled Funds (CBPF)
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
The UN Foundation Fund for AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
UNOPS Stop TB Partnership
UN Alliance of Civilizations (UNAOC)
UN Office on Drugs and Crime
UN Voluntary Trust Fund for Victims of Human Trafficking
Together for Girls
The Adaptation Fund
United Nations Mine Action Service (UNMAS)
UN Foundation
Nothing But Nets
Girl Up
Shot@Life
Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves
UNAIDS United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)
UNESCO
United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS) United Nations Development Programme
And about a half a dozen other funds.
Honestly, these people aren't fretting about the UN. They are worried about their loss of influence, their loss of power, the loss of the moral upper hand whereby they have historically beaten cowardly self-loathing Republicans into submission. Not anymore.
These ghastly-sounding funds sound like something out of Atlas Shrugged and 1984.
The UN’s version of peace — Christian-free, socialist, w/o an Israel — needs to be threatened.
Not true.
They also care about F'ing over Israel.
Maybe Soros, Cuban, Cook, the Clintons or other wealthy progressives might want to make up the shortfall to support their corrupt NWO buddies!
As far as a world Peace organization, the UN is the biggest eunuch in a harem.
You mean we’ve been living in times of “ unparalleled peace” since President Ronnie Reagan left office? Man, was I mistaken. What then shall we do now?
Is there an office of snowflake conversion therapy for those of missed all of the Clinton peace dividends and the Obama serenity decade?
There is Global Peace?
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.
