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.
(…)
Enough nitwittery from these nitwits .
“....could threaten global peace.”
How can something that doesn’t exist be threatened?
The war on minorities. The war on women. The war on the poor. The war on undocumented "citizens". The war on the media. The war with the NFL.
- MSNBC
There is no global peace but a globalist takeover using violent Islamists and Leftist perverts.
Am I missing something? I didn’t know there was global peace. Nobody told me.
Yeah, the UN is sooooo instrumental at maintaining whirled peas. Why, just look at their track record. /s
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.
